Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

Give me a laser that outputs at 15 microns and I will show you how IR can heat CO2, which would then pass energy to the rest of the molecules by collision and raise the temperature of the air.

If we are talking about passing energy via conduction, then we aren't talking about a radiative greenhouse effect, are we? In your example, the air is being warmed via conduction, not IR.

The total energy of the atmosphere is increased by GHGs absorbing radiation energy. The energy of the atmosphere is constantly changing form through molecular collision. When it is in kinetic form, that is measured as temperature, and it is indicative of the total energy but not perfectly so.

Only by the absorption of IR by water vapor..and then not all energy absorbed by water vapor is retained by the vapor...most of that moves on via conduction by collision. Radiation plays such a small part in the temperature of the atmosphere that it is vanishingly insignificant....

 

[IanC]

Give me a laser that outputs at 15 microns and I will show you how IR can heat CO2, which would then pass energy to the rest of the molecules by collision and raise the temperature of the air.

If we are talking about passing energy via conduction, then we aren't talking about a radiative greenhouse effect, are we? In your example, the air is being warmed via conduction, not IR.

The total energy of the atmosphere is increased by GHGs absorbing radiation energy. The energy of the atmosphere is constantly changing form through molecular collision. When it is in kinetic form, that is measured as temperature, and it is indicative of the total energy but not perfectly so.

Only by the absorption of IR by water vapor..and then not all energy absorbed by water vapor is retained by the vapor...most of that moves on via conduction by collision. Radiation plays such a small part in the temperature of the atmosphere that it is vanishingly insignificant....

The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.

Edit- I forgot to add that most of the energy 'retained' by water vapour is latent heat of phase change. That is a different category than absorption/emission of radiation in gases. CO2 also carries latent heat but it does not release it because it does not precipitate out of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

CO2 has no power to cause warming in the atmosphere unless you add so much that it makes the atmosphere significantly heavier.

 

[Wuwei]

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

Where do you think CO2 releases it's energy? Mostly up? Down? All directions? Where does it it's energy eventually end up?

 

[IanC]

The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

CO2 has no power to cause warming in the atmosphere unless you add so much that it makes the atmosphere significantly heavier.

Another naked claim.

Now you seem to be saying CO2 and water vapour absorb radiation by a similar mechanism but emit radiation by different mechanisms.

How is the emission from H2O different from CO2, or any other three atom molecule?

 

[SSDD]

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

Where do you think CO2 releases it's energy? Mostly up? Down? All directions? Where does it it's energy eventually end up?

The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...that means that as the energy moves, it must keep moving towards cooler areas...where do you think it spontaneously moves to?...somewhere warmer?

 

[SSDD]

The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

CO2 has no power to cause warming in the atmosphere unless you add so much that it makes the atmosphere significantly heavier.

Another naked claim.

Now you seem to be saying CO2 and water vapour absorb radiation by a similar mechanism but emit radiation by different mechanisms.

How is the emission from H2O different from CO2, or any other three atom molecule?

Water vapor can hold on to absorbed energy....CO2 can not. That would seem to be different.

 

[IanC]

The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

CO2 has no power to cause warming in the atmosphere unless you add so much that it makes the atmosphere significantly heavier.

Another naked claim.

Now you seem to be saying CO2 and water vapour absorb radiation by a similar mechanism but emit radiation by different mechanisms.

How is the emission from H2O different from CO2, or any other three atom molecule?

Water vapor can hold on to absorbed energy....CO2 can not. That would seem to be different.

You keep making that claim but refuse to explain it. How does water vapour hold on to radiation energy in a way that CO2 does not?

 

[IanC]

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

Where do you think CO2 releases it's energy? Mostly up? Down? All directions? Where does it it's energy eventually end up?

The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...that means that as the energy moves, it must keep moving towards cooler areas...where do you think it spontaneously moves to?...somewhere warmer?

The second law of thermodynamics is a description of net energy movement by statistical probability.

You are giving it a mystical power to go inside a molecule and override the local conditions to prohibit radiation in certain directions, based on distant external conditions that have no direct contact with the molecule.

Can you give us a reference to any science experiment that finds this result? Or any theory that predicts this unusual result?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

Where do you think CO2 releases it's energy? Mostly up? Down? All directions? Where does it it's energy eventually end up?

The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...that means that as the energy moves, it must keep moving towards cooler areas...where do you think it spontaneously moves to?...somewhere warmer?

The second law of thermodynamics says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...

Which means the cooler walls of my home are allowed to emit toward my warmer body.
Just like Science said back in 1963. Glad you've finally seen your error.

 

[Wuwei]

Where do you think CO2 releases it's energy? Mostly up? Down? All directions? Where does it it's energy eventually end up?

...that means that as the energy moves, it must keep moving towards cooler areas...where do you think it spontaneously moves to?...somewhere warmer?

You said IR can't move to air:

So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air...

If you don't think the IR from the atmosphere can heat the earth, and you don't think it can heat air, just what do you think it heats?

 

[SSDD]

You said IR can't move to air:

I never said that...I said that when IR is absorbed by all so called greenhouse gasses except water vapor, it is immediately emitted on to a cooler area, or in the vast majority of instances, it is transferred to another molecule via collision.

If you don't think the IR from the atmosphere can heat the earth, and you don't think it can heat air, just what do you think it heats?

[/quote]

It can warm water vapor somewhat, since water vapor has the capacity to store energy at atmospheric temperatures even though most of that energy is transferred via collision with other molecules...otherwise, it doesn't warm anything..it moves on towards space. It doesn't move from the cooler atmosphere back to the warmer surface of the earth.

 

[Wuwei]

I never said that...I said that when IR is absorbed by all so called greenhouse gasses except water vapor, it is immediately emitted on to a cooler area, or in the vast majority of instances, it is transferred to another molecule via collision.

It can warm water vapor somewhat, since water vapor has the capacity to store energy at atmospheric temperatures even though most of that energy is transferred via collision with other molecules...otherwise, it doesn't warm anything..it moves on towards space. It doesn't move from the cooler atmosphere back to the warmer surface of the earth.

If a GHG is excited by IR, and that excitation energy is transfered to another molecule via collision, that other molecule would gain energy. The randomness of that process increases heat, by definition. In short, you are saying IR warms the air. That is the opposite of what you said earlier, that heating engineers claim IR does not not warm air.

When you say that IR can warm water vapor, which is intimately interspersed in the atmosphere, you are saying that individual water molecules can absorb IR. Then you say water vapor has the capacity to store energy. How can it do that when that energy is immediately transfered to the atmospheric molecules (mostly N2 and O2). It is more correct to say that water molecules has the capacity to absorb and transfer energy. If water vapor has that property, then so do all other GHGs. Water vapor alone can't store and hold more energy than the atmosphere it is in.

 

[IanC]

The mechanism of IR absorption is identical for water vapour and CO2. Only the emmisivity for wavelengths is different, and the emission time for the molecule in an excited state. I would imagine all 3 atom molecules are similar in this respect but of course there may be exceptions.

But the mechanism for emission is very different...CO2, at atmospheric temperatures releases the energy it absorbs immediately..it does not warm...water vapor on the other hand, does not.

CO2 has no power to cause warming in the atmosphere unless you add so much that it makes the atmosphere significantly heavier.

Another naked claim.

Now you seem to be saying CO2 and water vapour absorb radiation by a similar mechanism but emit radiation by different mechanisms.

How is the emission from H2O different from CO2, or any other three atom molecule?

Water vapor can hold on to absorbed energy....CO2 can not. That would seem to be different.

You keep making that claim but refuse to explain it. How does water vapour hold on to radiation energy in a way that CO2 does not?

I really think you should answer the question.

. How does water vapour hold on to radiation energy in a way that CO2 does not?

 

[SSDD]

If a GHG is excited by IR, and that excitation energy is transfered to another molecule via collision, that other molecule would gain energy. The randomness of that process increases heat, by definition. In short, you are saying IR warms the air. That is the opposite of what you said earlier, that heating engineers claim IR does not not warm air.

And yet once again, you fail on the basics...when energy is transferred to another molecule in the air, that is conduction, not radiation. Energy moved via conduction is not IR. Refer to the laws of thermodynamics...energy can be changed from one form to another but can not be created or destroyed...Energy transfer via molecular collision is not infrared radiation and has nothing to do with either radiation or the so called radiative greenhouse effect.

This is basic stuff and once again, you fail miserably.

When you say that IR can warm water vapor, which is intimately interspersed in the atmosphere, you are saying that individual water molecules can absorb IR. Then you say water vapor has the capacity to store energy. How can it do that when that energy is immediately transfered to the atmospheric molecules (mostly N2 and O2). {/auote]

Can you read? Go back and look at what I said. Fabricating arguments from me to argue against is hardly a good defense of your position.

It is more correct to say that water molecules has the capacity to absorb and transfer energy. If water vapor has that property, then so do all other GHGs. Water vapor alone can't store and hold more energy than the atmosphere it is in.

No...it is more correct to say what I said..refer to desert vs coastal region at the same lattitude and altitude...one cools off very quickly at night..one doesn't...the difference is the presence of water vapor that has accumulated energy during the daylight hours.

And no...other so called greenhouse gas do not have the ability to store energy...no other gas molecule known to man can store energy at atmospheric pressures and temperatures.

 

[SSDD]

I really think you should answer the question.

.



I have answered it over and over and will not answer it again...If you don't believe that water vapor holds energy, then explain the difference in temperature change at night between desert areas and coastal areas at the same latitude and altitude.

at atmospheric pressures and temperatures, no other gas has the capacity to retain energy.

 

[Wuwei]

If a GHG is excited by IR, and that excitation energy is transfered to another molecule via collision, that other molecule would gain energy. The randomness of that process increases heat, by definition. In short, you are saying IR warms the air. That is the opposite of what you said earlier, that heating engineers claim IR does not not warm air.

And yet once again, you fail on the basics...when energy is transferred to another molecule in the air, that is conduction, not radiation. Energy moved via conduction is not IR. Refer to the laws of thermodynamics...energy can be changed from one form to another but can not be created or destroyed...Energy transfer via molecular collision is not infrared radiation and has nothing to do with either radiation or the so called radiative greenhouse effect.

This is basic stuff and once again, you fail miserably.

When you say that IR can warm water vapor, which is intimately interspersed in the atmosphere, you are saying that individual water molecules can absorb IR. Then you say water vapor has the capacity to store energy. How can it do that when that energy is immediately transfered to the atmospheric molecules (mostly N2 and O2). {/auote]

Can you read? Go back and look at what I said. Fabricating arguments from me to argue against is hardly a good defense of your position.

It is more correct to say that water molecules has the capacity to absorb and transfer energy. If water vapor has that property, then so do all other GHGs. Water vapor alone can't store and hold more energy than the atmosphere it is in.

No...it is more correct to say what I said..refer to desert vs coastal region at the same lattitude and altitude...one cools off very quickly at night..one doesn't...the difference is the presence of water vapor that has accumulated energy during the daylight hours.

And no...other so called greenhouse gas do not have the ability to store energy...no other gas molecule known to man can store energy at atmospheric pressures and temperatures.

Of course it's conduction when collisions occur. Don't use that simple fact to skirt the issue that the existence of IR at 15 microns still warms the air contrary to your blanket statement that engineers say it doesn't. (They were referring to near IR not far IR.)

 

[IanC]

SSDD said- (I can't directly quote him because he butchered the quote function again)

.
I have answered it over and over and will not answer it again...If you don't believe that water vapor holds energy, then explain the difference in temperature change at night between desert areas and coastal areas at the same latitude and altitude.

at atmospheric pressures and temperatures, no other gas has the capacity to retain energy.

The reason why dry deserts cool off faster is because more surface radiation directly escapes to space without being scattered by water vapour.

At a radiation wavelength absorbed by H2O, a photon absorbed will be reemited in a random direction, roughly half towards space and half towards the surface. Only half of the energy is lost, only half of the possible cooling happens.

In SSDD'S bizarre version of physics, the H2O molecule is only permitted to radiate towards space BUT the surface radiation is also reduced by the same unknown mechanism.

In both versions the energy loss and subsequent cooling is exactly the same. SSDD just added a magical epicycle so that he could claim no radiation was returning from the atmosphere.

Occam needs a shave. Where's his razor?


All three atom molecules can absorb and emit IR by the same mechanism. Only the wavelengths that they react with are different.

SSDD says water vapour is a special case, that it retains energy in a way that other molecules do not. I say bullshit as far as radiation is involved.

Latent heat for phase change by evaporation is drawn from the energy contained by water at the surface, and released by water droplets during condensation. This is a kinetic speed interaction. It also plays havoc with the Ideal Gas Law.

 

[SSDD]

Of course it's conduction when collisions occur. Don't use that simple fact to skirt the issue that the existence of IR at 15 microns still warms the air contrary to your blanket statement that engineers say it doesn't. (They were referring to near IR not far IR.)

IR does not warm the air...there is IR at a wide range of frequencies...and far more of it..CO2 absorbs it then either emits it on towards cooler areas or loses the energy via collision...it does not warm the air...infrared radiation does not warm the air...and once again, you are a blithering idiot...they specifically said that far IR does not warm the air.

Rather than go back through them all, which all say the same thing...being physics and all, I will only visit one...

They say: " Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses."

then they go on to describe their own radiant heaters "This “watt density” as it is called projects Far Infrared within a 2.5 to 3 metre distance from the heater (which spreads out radially from the panel to cover an arc up to 5 metres by 5 metres depending on panel power). This coverage is perfect for domestic or office “comfort” heating."

If you had bothered to look, and actually try to comprehend what was being said rather than looking for some rational way to dismiss millions of hours of observation of industrial application, you would have seen that they were all talking about far IR...

Do you never tire of being wrong?

 

[SSDD]

The reason why dry deserts cool off faster is because more surface radiation directly escapes to space without being scattered by water vapour.{/quote]

Scattered? Really? How far are you really willing to drag your intellect through the sewer in an effort to rationalize your beliefs?